Injunction is a remedy inpersonam - prohibiting a specific party from doing a specified act, or to undo some wrong. The relief is both declaratory and equitable, which is sought, and granted, on the plea of apprehension of an injuria. The apprehension so pleaded should not be fanciful, rather it must pass the muster of three prongs: the prima facie case of the Applicant; the balance of convenience in favour of the Applicant for the grant of injunction; and irreparable loss to the Applicant, if the relief sought is not granted.
Though the injunction can be granted at any stage of the proceedings, as a rule, the Court is required to issue a notice to the party before issuing any injunction. However, where the apprehension pleaded is such that the delay would defeat the object of granting injunction, the Court may, for the reasons to be recorded1, issue an ex parte or ad interim injunction.2
In the borderless digital world, sometimes the infringer is unknown - hiding under domain names, URLs and IP addresses. Thus, if an online infringing content is struck down/removed under an injunction order, the same content can be replicated with a mere sleight of hands - on mirror websites or by creating new URLs - making such infringers hydra headed. Hence, for each act of infringement and online piracy, a fresh proceeding would have to be initiated for traditional injunctions, which was cumbersome and often ineffective in addressing online infringement.
Consequently, the traditional injunctions have evolved under judicial pronouncements, into advanced and ever evolving versions, such as dynamic, dynamic+, and superlative injunctions.
Dynamic Injunction
Dynamic injunction emerged as the first evolved version of the traditional injunction to combat the online infringement, shifting from party centric to content-centric approach. It was first coined by the High Court of Singapore in Disney Enterprises3 as a kind of injunction that can be issued in cases in which materially the same website becomes available immediately after issuing the injunction with a different IP address or URL, masked or mirrored in such a way that such new IP address or URL cannot be injuncted without a new injunction order. It is essentially an injunction which acts as an order for blocking the infringing or objectionable content rather than just the source which displays it. The High Court of Singapore held that dynamic injunction provides a practical means of ensuring continued effectiveness of the original injunction order, since it provided expedited process for the blocking of additional domain names, IP addresses and websites which resolve to the same infringing websites, where there is undisputed and unchallenged by the infringer.
The High Court of Delhi in UTV Software Communication4 while addressing copyright infringement by rogue websites noted that though the High Court of Singapore granted the relief in its specific legislation, and no similar legislation exists in India; however, to free the Courts from constantly monitoring and adjudicating the issue of hydra headed infringement and multiplicity of suits, the same relief can be granted by the Courts to meet the ends of justice.
This approach addresses the issue of repeatedly approaching the Court and delays, which is associated with traditional injunctions. Hence, it is effective in addressing the hydra headed nature of online infringement, where shutting down one source of infringement merely leads to the emergence of others.
Dynamic+ Injunction
Dynamic+ injunction represents a second stage of evolution of the dynamic injunction, protecting the future works of copyright holders. Analysing the previous acts of infringement, this ex-ante approach anticipates infringement and seeks to prevent it from occurring in future works, which would be covered under copyright protection upon creation.
It was coined by the High Court of Delhi in Universal Studios LLC5 to keep pace with the dynamic nature of the infringement and protect copyrighted works as soon as they are created, to ensure that no irreparable loss is caused to the authors and owners of copyrighted works.
This form of injunction is particularly relevant in the context of time-sensitive content, such as movies or sporting events, where rogue websites often upload infringing material immediately upon release.
Superlative Injunction
Superlative injunction is the most recent evolution of injunction, extending the ambit of injunctions even further. It is an enhanced form of dynamic+ injunctions, designed to provide real-time relief against infringing activities, particularly in time-sensitive situations like live sporting events.
It was recently coined by the High Court of Delhi in Star India Pvt Ltd6 while recognising the increasing use of mobile platforms for disseminating infringing content. The Hon'ble High Court extended the ambit of dynamic injunction even further by including various digital platforms beyond rogue websites, such as mobile applications, and offering real-time relief against infringing activities.
This form of injunction is relevant in addressing time-sensitive infringements, such as live sporting events, where infringing content can appear and disappear quickly.
Conclusion
Judicial dynamism has culled out dynamic injunction and its variants. Though begotten on the same principles of injunction as legislated in the Code, such reliefs have evolved by judicial decisions to keep pace with the digital age. While the traditional injunction was party centric, dynamic injunctions are content centric, nipping injuria in the bud instead of taking the unknown offender to task.
The dissemination of content online is a facet of freedom of speech and right to livelihood. Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal7 called for caution to the potential over-blocking and excessive censorship by directing that any such content can be removed by the data intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from the court order or on being notified by the appropriate government. This directive brings reasonableness to the restriction imposed on the rights of the content creator.
The implementation of dynamic injunction raises certain concerns, where determination of infringement or same content requires careful consideration to avoid over-blocking and potential censorship. Its evolved forms also raise concerns regarding potential overreach and the presumption of ownership of future works, since pre-emptively blocking access to works that have not yet been created may be disproportionate and could affect legitimate uses of copyrighted material.
In the context of digital content market, since these injunctions are usually granted ex parte, they can be misused by a party to take down its competitor. This also raises concerns about potential over-blocking and the need for carefully calibrated guidelines to balance the rights inter se the parties.
On one hand these evolved forms of injunctions provide an effective and speedy redressal from infringement by directing the intermediary to take down the infringing source; on the other hand, certain intermediaries claim that their infrastructure is such that blocking or take down can only be done after receipt of a court order.8 For such intermediaries the aggrieved party has to approach the Court again upon the break of infringement.9
Footnotes
1. Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD (1993) 3 SCC 161
2. Order XXXIX Rule 3
3. Disney Enterprise v. Ml Ltd., (2018) SGHC 206
4. UTV Software Communication Ltd. and Ors. v. 1337x.to & Ors., CS(COMM) 724/2017
5. Universal City Studios LLC. v. Dotmovies.Baby & Ors. CS(COMM) 514/2023, order dated August 9, 2023.
6. Star India Pvt Ltd v. IPTV Smarter Pro CS(COMM) 108/2025, order dated May 29, 2025
7. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC 1523
8. Zee Entertainment Ltd. v. Tejender Modi CS(COMM) 231/2021 order dated June 01, 2021
9. Niva Bupa Health Insurance v. Telegram FZ-LLC CS(COMM) 1089/2024 order dated May 01, 2025
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
